Monster Design--from a designer's standpoint

[Wiman]

That's good with the 4,5,6...Mustrum brought me around to the thinking of one ability always recharging seeming a little much. Flinds in 1e got an automatic two attacks a round due to speed with the weapon, I think that's a little much too (so if Bar Flurry recharges they get two, if not they get one, or one and a chance at a disarm.)

I know I'm not making the stat block conform with my extra descriptions of skills I'm a sucker for descriptive fluff info and luckily I'm not a developer

 

[Mephistopheles]

The 1/3/5, 2/4/6 thing is a little odd - you roll to recharge each ability, so just make it 4 5 6. Also... you're making the monster abilities really verbose, like a character's. I mean, I like flavor text and that's cool, but may as well stick to the script a little

Big stat blocks has been one thing I'm not sure 4E will do away with.

I appreciate that 3E stat blocks are very thorough when it comes to knowing about a monster. The majority of the time when a monster is only going to be damage fodder I generate a mini stat block for it that tells me only what I need to know to run it. With the older style (for D&D at least) free form monster design making a comeback in 4E the trade off will be that we won't just have a list of feats and spells that we know from the PHB or other sources. We'll have to define all of the abilities in the stat block. We also get more variety in monster abilities but the DM needs to be familiar with all of the monster specific abilities. That could become a bit of work with the larger encounter sizes of 4E. I haven't tried translating a 4E stat block to the style of mini stat block I use with 3E yet (pretty much a reference card format with the frequent go to items highlighted for quick catching of the eye) so I'm not sure how practical that would be.

On a somewhat related tangent I don't think the DDXP games were representative of 4E so I'm not reading too much into the play reports from the convention. We really have no idea what it will be like to run a combat with a variety of different enemies each with their own unique abilities. The brevity of the 4E Pit Fiend leads me to think that it can get pretty hairy so the designers are intentionally keeping things trim in the interest of keeping stat blocks at a reasonable length and not overwhelming DMs.

It certainly seems like it will be easier to design monsters in 4E than it is in 3E (as it was in previous editions), but I'm not yet convinced it'll be similarly easier to run them. I'm eagerly awaiting some detailed reports of play in the upper Heroic and lower Paragon (5-15 band or so) levels to get an idea of how the real meat of the game is going to play.

 

[Orcus]

This one is for Clark,

If you can design me a Flind (dosn't have to be named a flind) with Flail Snail minions I will promise to buy every Necro product that comes out for 4e. I am a fan of your company and it's products to date. As for the Flind I'm disappointed it was missing from the gnoll write up - here's hoping next year.

Wiman, Scott and I were talking about the flind the other night, as he said. Problem is, that one may need WotC's permission (if the GSL doesnt interact well with old OGC).

We talked about the flail snail and the flumph too. Gotta do the flumph!

 

[Orcus]

What no herd of Catoblepi minions able to perform a stampede as an encounter power?

Scott and I listened to the comments above and now there is the big solo brute bull and some slightly lower level catoblepii that could sure work in a herd.

 

[Wiman]

Flumph

My favorite part of the Flumph original text is "A flumph is helpless if turned over." and it's a paragraph in that one sentence after all the other abilities are listed.

Tell you one thing Necro peoples, if you make flumphs I'm gonna have a lot of fun tring to figure out ways to turn them over.

Flumph the pancake turtle monster with bad gas.

Will make an adventure entitled "Flip the Flumph"

 

[Orcus]

A lot of it is going to be up to WotC. They gave us permission to do some of those monsters before. Hopefully our excellent track record of being good caretakers of their content will encourage them to let us do it again. We'll see. But regardless, there will be a Tome 4E. Filled to the brim with monster-y goodness. It might just not have a flumph.

 

[hong]

It might just not have a flumph.

 

[Lizard]

Wiman, Scott and I were talking about the flind the other night, as he said. Problem is, that one may need WotC's permission (if the GSL doesnt interact well with old OGC).

We talked about the flail snail and the flumph too. Gotta do the flumph!

The GSL *can't* interact with the OGL.

The best WOTC can do is place the 3x SRD under the GSL so that companies have an easier time converting. They can do this with the proviso that the GSL'ed material only be used for 4e supplements or other limits.

There's no way I can see, legally, for the GSL to 'incorporate' OGL material generically. You can't decree that material released under one license is now considered to be released under another. If you could, I could just write "Lizard's Lovely License" and decree material released under the GSL is now covered under the LLL.

All material currently under the OGL will not be under the GSL unless the current copyright holders choose to release it individually, and given the way the GSL is shaping up, I can't see as they'd have a motive to do so (WOTC might be an exception). This means anything which derives from third party content can't be 'upgraded', except by the copyright holder, and books which have content from mixed sources are pretty much unusable.

I strongly suspect there will be no viral component to the GSL. Necromancer might be able to voluntarily open its stuff -- not sure -- but it won't be automatic, so the utility of the TOH to third parties will be negligable. While it wouldn't surprise me it WOTC gave permission to Necromancer to use old IP, I would be very shocked if they allowed it to be 'open for 4e', so no one else will be using Flinds or Flumphs.

 

[Lizard]

Here's a shot at designing a functional Flind.
(Deletia)

My thoughts:
a)Too many powers. 4e monsters are much more focused. Split it into two subtypes. I'd say Flind Warrior (Soldier, with the flindbar abilities), and Flind Commander (Leader, with the 'buff my gnolls' abilities.) Make them normal monsters, and a typical encounter will be one leader, two warriors, and 8 8th level minion gnolls (Gnoll Pack Hunters, perhaps).

b)Studded Leather armor doesn't exist in 4e.

c)Text is a bit verbose for 4e. For the entangle, I'd say: "Opponent cannot use any abilities with the 'Weapon' attribute while adjacent to Flind; save ends. Opposed Strength check to move to a non-adjacent square." There's a lot of ways to turn this into a pile of special case rules to make it more "realistic", but 4e decries simulationism. Even simpler would be "While opponent is adjacent to Flind, all foes gain combat advantage". (The weapon is not completely tangled, but it's harder to use. This fits the 4e philosophy of not 'locking down' character abilities and sets up the tangled opponent for nasty synergy effects.)

d)I think making the entangle and the bar flurry Encounter, not recharge, powers would work better. Recharge powers tend to be supernatural/magical. OTOH, I've only seen a few 'official' monsters and may be generalizing.

 

[1of3]

Shouldn't the Flind have Pack Tactics, too, if it is a Gnoll?